Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dorico MCP Server

Dorico MCP Server

by happycastle114
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

open_score

Open an existing Dorico score file by specifying its file path to load it into the application.

Instructions

Open an existing score file.

Args: path: File path to the Dorico project file (.dorico)

Returns: Success status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "open_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Open an existing score file' and 'Returns: Success status.' It does not mention side effects (e.g., discarding unsaved work), error conditions (e.g., file not found), or whether the tool loads the file into the environment for editing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences) and well-structured, beginning with the core purpose, followed by an 'Args' section and 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, parameter meaning, and return value. However, it lacks context about behavioral implications (e.g., effect on current state) that would make it fully complete for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'path' parameter, but the description adds valuable semantics: 'path: File path to the Dorico project file (.dorico).' This clarifies the expected file type and format, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Open an existing score file,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_score (new file) and save_score (save current) by focusing on opening an existing file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by its name and context, but no guidance is given on when not to use it (e.g., if the score is already open) or which sibling to prefer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools